Please note: we have been online over ten years, and we want The Trek BBS to continue as a free site. But if you block our ads we are at risk.Please consider unblocking ads for this site - every ad you view counts and helps us pay for the bandwidth that you are using. Thank you for your understanding.

Welcome! The Trek BBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans. Please login to see our full range of forums as well as the ability to send and receive private messages, track your favourite topics and of course join in the discussions.

If you are a new visitor, join us for free. If you are an existing member please login below. Note: for members who joined under our old messageboard system, please login with your display name not your login name.

I always tend to think of "masculino-fascist" type of concepts as what you get when you have a right-winger embarrassed by their cherished reactionary illusions trying to sound leftish by trying to copy Marxism without ever, ever bothering to find out anything about it.

Then, when I see people trying to turn an internet post into a bloody shirt they wave around to inspire rage, I get queasy.

Material conditions determine ideas, not the other way around. There will never be any way to liberate humanity by persuading enough people to think differently. By now, every effort to do so betrays a commitment to backwards notions about souls and sin, however they may try to disguise them.

__________________
The people of this country need regime change here, not abroad.

I always tend to think of "masculino-fascist" type of concepts as what you get when you have a right-winger embarrassed by their cherished reactionary illusions trying to sound leftish by trying to copy Marxism without ever, ever bothering to find out anything about it.

Then, when I see people trying to turn an internet post into a bloody shirt they wave around to inspire rage, I get queasy.

Material conditions determine ideas, not the other way around. There will never be any way to liberate humanity by persuading enough people to think differently. By now, every effort to do so betrays a commitment to backwards notions about souls and sin, however they may try to disguise them.

My feeling is that you're using a bulldozer to destroy an anthill. I could be wrong, but I think this feminist article is a parody. I'm almost certain.

I enjoyed the film, but it was held back by a reliance on the standard hollywood formula and tropes. The first 45 minutes or so were fantastic, but once Sandra Bullock reached the ISS the film fell apart for me. Sandra Bullock's character just bounces from one disaster to another while the experienced astronaut, the guy who is one day away from retirement, dies saving her.

Sandra Bullock hitches a ride with Matt. He dies.

She boards the ISS. It catches fire within a minute.

She boards the Soyuz escape pod. It gets tangled in the ISS.

She frees herself from the ISS. The ISS blows up.

She tries to use the Soyuz' thrusters to reach the Tiangong. It's out of fuel.

She reaches the Tiangong. It blows up within a minute.

She reaches Earth in the escape pod. Nearly drowns opening the hatch.

She swims to the surface. Gets attacked by a shark.

She reaches land. Natives capture her and try to sacrifice her to their volcano god.

She escapes from the tribe and is rescued by a helicopter. Helicopter crashes into the ruins of Jurassic Park.

I might be a little fuzzy on the details near the end there, but I'm pretty sure I got the gist of it. I remember joking to myself that she'd reach the Tiangong only to destroy it. Hey, guess what happened? She's a god damn walking (floating) disaster.

I really enjoyed the film, but it got silly at the end. A+ for the first half. C- for the second half. Overall, I went with a B+.

It's weird. I've seen this film 7 times now and while I know the story is basically generic to the point where it might as well not exist, as a film it's one of the best filmmaking experiences I've had the pleasure to enjoy. Seeing it on a giant screen in 3D is just a joy, and I think it's probably Cauron's best work to date.

^ Better than Children of Men? No. Better than Azkaban? ... I'd call it about even.

So if I take the "story" of the equation, then that 12 minute open I feel blows both long takes from Children of Men out of the water. I feel like this is the culmination of the Lubezki/Cauron collaboration - although I suppose working on two Malick films probably helped a lot too. (But maybe his work on Gravity probably ended before he started working with Malick?)

It's just a beautiful cinematic experience to behold, and the threadbare plot and characters actually makes it much more like an IMAX space film inasmuch as you can just sit back and rewatch the film over and over again without feeling like you are being forced to "sit through" something. I love Children of Men and Y Tu Mama Tambien (never watched the Harry Potter movie), but something about Gravity is just magical to watch.

I look at it this way, if I were to ever rewatch Children of Men, it'd be only for the ending. With Gravity, I could rewatch the entire film and be perfectly fine doing so (well, the fact that I've done it 7 times now is a testament to that fact).

Of course, I'm perfectly willing to admit that the script is probably the worst that Cauron has had to work with. But I'm okay with it just being all "style" and very little "substance". I'm actually considering buying a 3D TV for this movie - that's how deep a hole I am in with this thing.

I feel like this is the culmination of the Lubezki/Cauron collaboration - although I suppose working on two Malick films probably helped a lot too. (But maybe his work on Gravity probably ended before he started working with Malick?)

Lubezki has been collaborating with Terrence Malick since The New World in 2005. That film, and The Tree of Life (2011) certainly predate principal photography on Gravity.

He's been working with Malick a lot longer though -- since Love in the Time of Hysteria in 1991.

It's weird. I've seen this film 7 times now and while I know the story is basically generic to the point where it might as well not exist

7 times. Do you work for a movie theatre chain?

I saw this film yesterday for the first time and loved it. I'm willing to overlook the scientific nitpicks that deGrasso-Tyson had as I believe most people are because most of us aren't scientists and his faults of the film are minor IMO.

One point of the plot I didn't get or perhaps missed the dialogue in the film is why was the Chinese space station losing its orbit? That seemed just a little to easy to make the plot work. Also that she gets incredibly lucky pushing the right controls to eject the emergency landing vehicle.

Of course, I'm perfectly willing to admit that the script is probably the worst that Cauron has had to work with. But I'm okay with it just being all "style" and very little "substance". I'm actually considering buying a 3D TV for this movie - that's how deep a hole I am in with this thing.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess I can't disagree. But if it were me, I'd definitely go for a 3D projector rather than a TV - you get a bigger screen/viewing area, and a more cinematic experience. But that's just moi.

(...) I'm actually considering buying a 3D TV for this movie - that's how deep a hole I am in with this thing.

Well, when you put it that way, I guess I can't disagree. But if it were me, I'd definitely go for a 3D projector rather than a TV - you get a bigger screen/viewing area, and a more cinematic experience. But that's just moi.

I agree. I've recently bought a 3D projector (I love it) and can't wait for Gravity to come out on 3D blu-ray! (well, that and Pacific Rim)

I feel like this is the culmination of the Lubezki/Cauron collaboration - although I suppose working on two Malick films probably helped a lot too. (But maybe his work on Gravity probably ended before he started working with Malick?)

Lubezki has been collaborating with Terrence Malick since The New World in 2005. That film, and The Tree of Life (2011) certainly predate principal photography on Gravity.

He's been working with Malick a lot longer though -- since Love in the Time of Hysteria in 1991.

Ah, I had no idea they were working together for that long. I just assumed they hooked up with Tree of Life and To The Wonder.
Either way, as a cinematic experience, it's just beautiful. It probably helps being a giant space nerd though.

DarthTom wrote:

7 times. Do you work for a movie theatre chain?

I don't. Part of it was just experiencing it in as many formats as I could. I've seen it in Atmos, IMAX, D-Box, and "regular". IMAX was the best viewing experience simply because it has the brightest projection.

And that's my only criticism of 3D - most film theaters don't pay for the higher luminance projection, so all my non-IMAX viewings of the movie looked dark and muddy at times.

Gaith wrote:

Well, when you put it that way, I guess I can't disagree. But if it were me, I'd definitely go for a 3D projector rather than a TV - you get a bigger screen/viewing area, and a more cinematic experience. But that's just moi.

AvBaur wrote:

I agree. I've recently bought a 3D projector (I love it) and can't wait for Gravity to come out on 3D blu-ray! (well, that and Pacific Rim)

I don't have the room to go with a projector unfortunately. I was actually looking for smaller 3D TVs, but it looks like the TV makers are only putting 3D into 40" or larger sets these days. At least that's what the chain stores seem to carry up here anyway.

I always tend to think of "masculino-fascist" type of concepts as what you get when you have a right-winger embarrassed by their cherished reactionary illusions trying to sound leftish by trying to copy Marxism without ever, ever bothering to find out anything about it.

Spaceflight and even science was lampooned as being 'penetrative' for awhile by some eco-feminists and deep ecologists. Even Chomsky had to put the breaks on that and well as postmodernism. I've always adored Camille Paglia myself.